USA – The Future Of Abortion Is In The Hands Of John Roberts

The Future Of Abortion Is In The Hands Of John Roberts
Medically unnecessary laws regulating abortion have been exposed as dishonest attempts to close clinics. Will the Supreme Court still give them legal cover?

03/06/2020
By Melissa Jeltsen, HuffPost US

In 2016, Louisiana had six abortion clinics. By 2017, the number had dwindled to three. Soon, there may be only one clinic left to serve nearly 1 million women of reproductive age in the state. Whether or not this happens will likely depend on the outcome of a critical abortion case now with the Supreme Court.

The case centers on a Louisiana law that requires doctors who provide abortions to have “admitting privileges” at a hospital within 30 miles of their clinic, a difficult-to-obtain arrangement that critics say is a sly attempt to wipe out abortion access in the state.

Continued: https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/john-roberts-abortion-supreme-court_n_5e613793c5b601904ea6fd78?ri18n=true


USA – Abortion Clinics Are Getting Nickel-and-Dimed Out of Business

Abortion Clinics Are Getting Nickel-and-Dimed Out of Business
From legal battles to securing vendors to getting the walls painted, every budget line is a struggle.

By Cynthia Koons and Rebecca Greenfield
February 27, 2020

Amy Hagstrom Miller, owner of Whole Woman’s Health in Austin, has faced many existential threats to her business. When Texas passed a law in 2013 requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, she was forced to close the clinic. She fought the measure all the way to the Supreme Court, and in 2016, she prevailed. By a 5–3 decision, the court ruled in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt that the law wasn’t medically justified. There’s an iconic photo of Hagstrom Miller descending the Supreme Court steps afterward, fist raised, smile radiant. Nine months later, she reopened her clinic.

It looked like a happy ending. But a year later the Austin clinic was on the brink again.

Continued: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-27/abortion-clinics-are-the-most-challenging-small-business-in-america


End of Roe v Wade? June Medical Services v Gee abortion case could irreversibly weaken landmark judgment

End of Roe v Wade? June Medical Services v Gee abortion case could irreversibly weaken landmark judgment
The landmark 1973 Roe v Wade judgment gives pregnant women liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction and June Medical Services v Gee poses a threat to abortion rights in the country

By Priyam Chhetri
Jan 28, 2020

Come March, the Supreme Court will hear two consolidated cases, June Medical Services v Gee and Gee v June Medical Services, which is being predicted as the greatest threat to abortion rights in the country in decades. It will also potentially hurt the landmark 1973 Roe v Wade judgment that gives pregnant women liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction.

Here's everything you need to know about the case.

Continued: https://meaww.com/june-medical-services-v-gee-abortion-law-judgment-roe-wade-landmark-1973-supreme-court-case


USA – Conservative Congress relishes prospect of stripping away our ‘right to abortion’

Conservative Congress relishes prospect of stripping away our 'right to abortion'
Our stigmatizing culture fails to protect its citizens' rights

By Tatum Lindquist, The Daily
Jan 20, 2020

With a conservative majority in the U.S. Supreme Court, June Medical Services, LLC. v Gee may well be the next landmark case in the decades-long fist-fight for reproductive rights. Two of Washington state’s U.S. representatives signed, along with 205 other members of Congress, an amicus curiae brief in support of the Louisiana Act in question with June Medical Services, LLC. v Gee.

In June 2014, Louisiana passed Act 620 that required any abortion provider to hold admitting privileges to a hospital that is within 30 miles of the abortion procedure. In 2016, a Texas bill with an almost identical provision on abortion was found unconstitutional in Whole Women's Health v Hellerstedt (2016). That restriction on abortion providers was cited as an "undue burden" since it hindered a women's constitutional right to seek an abortion without any credible justification.

Continued: http://www.dailyuw.com/opinion/article_da3806b8-3bf2-11ea-9b0e-fb1bbf8f65f0.html


The Louisiana Clinic At The Center Of Abortion Case Before Supreme Court

The Louisiana Clinic At The Center Of Abortion Case Before Supreme Court

December 29, 2019
Sarah McCammon

On a recent Saturday morning at Hope Medical Group for Women in Shreveport, La., Kathaleen Pittman was preparing for a day of procedures, as a couple dozen patients sat quietly in the waiting area.

Her clinic is challenging a law passed by Louisiana's state legislature in 2014, which requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital in case of an emergency. The case, June Medical Services, LLC v. Gee, is scheduled to go before the U.S. Supreme Court next year, and the court's decision has the potential to chip away at existing precedent protecting abortion rights.

Continued: https://www.npr.org/2019/12/29/791514162/the-louisiana-clinic-at-the-center-of-abortion-case-before-supreme-court


The downfall of Roe v. Wade started in 2010

The downfall of Roe v. Wade started in 2010
Abortion access in America hangs by a thread. The unraveling began a decade ago.

By Anna North
Dec 23, 2019

This year, five states passed laws banning abortion before most people know they’re pregnant. Alabama passed a ban on the procedure at any stage of pregnancy, with no exceptions for rape or incest. In Ohio, lawmakers introduced a bill that would create a crime called “abortion murder,” punishable by life in prison.

For many, restrictions like these would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. But as we look ahead to 2020, the anti-abortion movement could be on the brink of its biggest success yet: dismantling the landmark Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade.

Continued: https://www.vox.com/2019/12/23/21024312/abortion-laws-2019-ohio-georgia-roe-wade


It’s Not Just Roe: How the Future Supreme Court Could Gut Abortion Rights

It’s Not Just Roe: How the Future Supreme Court Could Gut Abortion Rights

By Talcott Camp, ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project
July 10, 2018

Now that President Donald Trump has nominated Brett Kavanaugh to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, it will be up to the Senate to fully vet him so that the American people can determine whether he will uphold the basic civil rights and liberties relied on by everyone in this country. This is particularly true when it comes to abortion rights, where Kavanaugh’s prior opinions on the subject, coupled with the fact that Donald Trump vowed to only nominate justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade, give rise to serious concern about women’s continued ability to access abortion if Kavanaugh is confirmed.

Continued: https://www.aclu.org/blog/reproductive-freedom/abortion/its-not-just-roe-how-future-supreme-court-could-gut-abortion


USA – Center for Reproductive Rights Statement on Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s Nomination to U.S. Supreme Court

Center for Reproductive Rights Statement on Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s Nomination to U.S. Supreme Court

07.09.18 - (PRESS RELEASE) Said Nancy Northup, President and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights:

“President Trump has vowed to nominate to the U.S. Supreme Court only justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade. In addition to this litmus test, he has also said women who have abortions should be punished. Today, with the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh, the President is presumably making good on his Roe-reversal promise. Every Senator should assume that is the case, absent a clear and compelling statement from the nominee that he agrees with the rationale and premise of Roe v. Wade—that the right to abortion is among the Constitution’s guaranteed personal liberty rights.

“In the past twelve years that Judge Kavanaugh has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, he has ruled in one case involving women’s access to abortion.

https://www.reproductiverights.org/press-room/center-for-reproductive-rights-statement-on-judge-brett-kavanaugh%E2%80%99s-nomination-to-us-supr


10 legal experts on the future of Roe v. Wade after Kennedy

10 legal experts on the future of Roe v. Wade after Kennedy
His decision to retire could lead to more “incremental” attacks against the landmark decision.
By Li Zhouli
Jul 2, 2018

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement announcement has spurred a raft of questions about how key legal precedents could shift under the tenure of a likely more conservative replacement — and chief among these is the fate of Roe v. Wade.

The landmark 1973 case that guaranteed women’s legal right to an abortion has been on conservatives’ target list for some time, and although Kennedy was appointed by a Republican president, he frequently sided with the liberal wing of the court and acted as a swing vote on cases preserving abortion rights.

Continued: https://www.vox.com/2018/7/2/17515154/kennedy-retirement-roe-wade


USA – Our research on abortion laws shows they are not based on facts and can even harm women

Our research on abortion laws shows they are not based on facts and can even harm women

Sarah Roberts, Opinion contributor
Published June 26, 2018
Our new study shows clinics and offices are as safe for abortion as surgical centers. Laws requiring them aren't rooted in fact and can even harm women.

Policymakers tout women’s health and safety when creating restrictive abortion laws, but new research from me and my colleagues unequivocally shows that restricting abortions to one type of facility makes no public health sense. Our work, published Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association, finds that abortion is no safer in an ambulatory surgical center than it is in a clinic or doctor’s office.

ASCs are fully equipped facilities for performing same-day surgeries. The Supreme Court ruling in Whole Woman’s Health vs. Hellerstedt two years ago found that the Texas law requiring that all abortion facilities meet the very specific and often stringent requirements of ASCs was unconstitutional.

Continued: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/06/26/abortion-laws-not-fact-based-can-harm-women-column/730938002/